Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Scientists Are Not, “Playing by the Rules”, When Exploring Intelligent Design (Po

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scientists Are Not, “Playing by the Rules”, When Exploring Intelligent Design (Po

    Guest: Greg Koukl explores whether science is undermined by a bias against Christian spirituality: "When people say Intelligent Design is not scientific what's going on is a trumping of the facts with Materialistic philosophy?

    Click here to read more ...

  • #2
    It isn't just Christian spirituality; materialistic science denies the reality of intelligence, free will, creativity, and anything but the most fundamental materilism when it denies the possibility of intelligent organization. One doesn't even have to be a theist to believe in a non materailsist soul.

    Questions about Materialism

    Comment


    • #3
      First of all, science is associated with methodological naturalism not materialism.

      Second, there is no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of super-natural causes, therefore no need to make non-naturalistic explanations even when speculating about possible explanations.

      Third, super-natural explanations aren't explanations at all or at least not good ones because they amount to saying "a miracle happened" which explains nothing. Remember the cartoon about the two scientists writing equations on the blackboard and then filling in a step with "a miricle happens here".

      Lastly Alex, Intelligent Design is a fraud and probably so is your guest.

      Comment


      • #4
        ID might be a non-starter for a lot of folks (Christian's have mauled the name forever), but if you look around you'll find a lot of serious scientists poking holes at a strictly Darwinian view of things. Consider:

        Michael Denton's -- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- He recently appeared on a panel discussion with Michael Shermer (Google it to find more).

        Emergence -- see the discussion in this forum

        Elisabet Sahtouris -- EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution -- she has some amazing insights about some of the limitations of the Darwinian approach.

        Comment


        • #5
          Not everyone regards intelligence as supernatural. If science were to acknowledge the ability to make subjective choices, (volition) as an aspect of living systems, they would acknowledte that life is intelligently and purposefully organized. I, personally, would not regard that as a materialistic position.

          Questions about Materialism

          Comment


          • #6
            Alex,

            I thought Greg Koukl was more thoughtful than your previous Christian guest, but I would have been tempted to ask him the hard questions:

            1) Why Christianity and not Hinduism/Islam/etc?

            2) If you can't take all of the Bible literally, how do you decide which bits to exclude?

            3) Was it moral for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice his son - even at God's command.

            4) In Judges 11, Jephthah ends up actually sacrificing his daughter to God in return for military prowess! What is his take on that story.

            Although in other respects Richard Dawkins is a Skeptic with a capital S, when talking about religion he does seem to hit the point. The bible is a weird hotchpotch of stories and ideas, some of which seem fairly decent, while others are abominable!

            David

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by alextsakiris View Post
              ID might be a non-starter for a lot of folks (Christian's have mauled the name forever), but if you look around you'll find a lot of serious scientists poking holes at a strictly Darwinian view of things. Consider:

              Michael Denton's -- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- He recently appeared on a panel discussion with Michael Shermer (Google it to find more).

              Emergence -- see the discussion in this forum

              Elisabet Sahtouris -- EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution -- she has some amazing insights about some of the limitations of the Darwinian approach.
              Alex you are being duped!

              Serious scientists always try to poke holes in theories but with regards to ID, there are NO serious scientists that have falsified Darwinian theory.

              I can give you a more detailed response as to how IDers (creationists) have made strawman claims or bogus claims about Darwinian theory so they could then knock them down. Also, contrary to their claims, IDers have not even presented an alternative to Darwins theory.

              ID is strictly a creationist-religious movement that is attempting to by-pass laws so they can eventually teach a form of creationism in schools.

              After being defeated in the Dover trials, they are already in their next phase of trying to re-work their position to get around the courts.

              This isn't about science, follow this blog for current events: The Panda's Thumb
              Last edited by mszlazak; September 5th, 2007, 10:27 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Mszlazak,

                Evolution has become a subject that is too hot to handle, but honestly, I can't see how anyone can claim to have proved that selection of the fittest (in some sense) is the only mechanism driving evolution.

                It is obvious that genes that make organisms less fit to survive will get weeded out - like the genes for the colour of moths that need camouflage - but how do you go about proving that there is no other force at work?

                David

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mszlazak View Post
                  Alex you are being duped!
                  What in particular about the referenced work do you disagree/agree with?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    check this out:
                    Skeptical Investigations - Controversies - Intelligent Design - index

                    Intelligent Design
                    The False Dilemma between Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design
                    by Ted Dace
                    The Hopeless and the Pointless: What Would Darwin Say?


                    This is a very good article which shows the shortcomings of intelligent design and of neo-darwinism...

                    greets,
                    Filip

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
                      I would have been tempted to ask him the hard questions:

                      1) Why Christianity and not Hinduism/Islam/etc?

                      2) If you can't take all of the Bible literally, how do you decide which bits to exclude?

                      3) Was it moral for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice his son - even at God's command.

                      4) In Judges 11, Jephthah ends up actually sacrificing his daughter to God in return for military prowess! What is his take on that story.

                      Although in other respects Richard Dawkins is a Skeptic with a capital S, when talking about religion he does seem to hit the point. The bible is a weird hotchpotch of stories and ideas, some of which seem fairly decent, while others are abominable!

                      David
                      I can't get too excited about debating Christianity... I'm sure there are some elements to the story that are worthwhile... maybe even true, but there are too many obvious contradictions and historical U-turns in there also.

                      I'm glad there are scholars out there beating back the dogmatic Christians, but that's not for me.

                      At the same time, I admire the logical, scientific angle Greg Koukl took during our interview. And, I think some of his points about the way science is played hit the mark.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Alex,

                        I certainly think Greg Koukl was a good choice, and he did make some good points - LOL - I guess I just hate their smug certainty in the face of so much contradiction!

                        David

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
                          Mszlazak,

                          Evolution has become a subject that is too hot to handle, but honestly, I can't see how anyone can claim to have proved that selection of the fittest (in some sense) is the only mechanism driving evolution.
                          Why not? I can. Anyway, I've never heard of a problem that it couldn't solve. IDers like Behe, Dembski, etc, have tried to give some problems they say couldn't be solved by Darwinian means ... guess what, they were!


                          Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
                          It is obvious that genes that make organisms less fit to survive will get weeded out - like the genes for the colour of moths that need camouflage - but how do you go about proving that there is no other force at work?

                          David
                          Why do I need to prove there are other forces at work when the ones we know work just fine?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by alextsakiris View Post
                            What in particular about the referenced work do you disagree/agree with?
                            Anything that says so and so cannot have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Mszlazak,

                              You can't judge a theory like natural selection just on the basis that it is capable of handling everything - the theory that God sits up there making arbitrary decisions would win hands down on that basis!

                              In a way, the idea of natural selection is just too slick - you could 'explain' why unicorns or fairies exist if they did!

                              I think there are serious questions about the natural selection of mental abilities. Brain power consumes resources, and the fact that our species evolved to produce mathematical geniuses just under the pressure to judge the angle of a spear seems a bit dubious to me!

                              Natural selection is really just a default theory - it certainly doesn't rule out other possibilities. If ψ is real, I think we can all imagine other possibilities.

                              David

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X